Public Holidays are wonderful things. We need more of them. However, until the onset of the hallowed, 4 day week, we’ll all have to bundle out of the city for a break by the sea, at the same time, on the same road.

As far as I can see (and admittedly I wear contact lenses), there is a lack of accessible Public Holiday listings; especially, beyond just a year or two ahead. So, I thought to make somebody’s life easier and prevent him from having to undergo the tedious task of compiling his own long-range listing to publish my own attempt.

This is an Eastern Australian listing (NSW, QLD, SA, VIC, TAS), but offshore visitors may find the Xmas and Easter dates still useful.

Moonrover tracks made before it is even unpackaged

“Hoax” or “Reality with studio photos added”?

This movie concentrates on just one piece of evidence: the lack of silhouettes exhibited in numerous photos. This evidence is the most concrete, in my opinion, even Mythbusters and NASA failed it their attempt to refute it. It is universally acknowledged that no artificial lights were taken to the moon. Thus, the lack of silhouettes demonstrates that many of the famous moon photos had to be shot with multiple light sources in an Earth studio.

This leaves us with 2 plausible eventualities: either NASA never went to the moon, or they did, but they had to fake many of the photos.

Did Man actually go to the moon, but NASA couldn’t take the dazzling shots that the world craved to recognise this momentous event? Were the photos, that covered magazines all around the world, shot in a studio for maximum impact, whereas the authentic shots, ones done on the moon, were discarded as they were lacklustre?

NASA helps win the Cold War

This is all academic though.

Regardless of the authenticity of the Apollo missions, they were possibly the greatest achievement of modern Man. Any way you look at it, Mission was Accomplished.

NASA did their part to help win the East-West Cold War.

Whether they could actually, technologically achieve a lunar landing in 1969 is seriously questionable. However, they convinced the world that they did. This is what it took to win one of the most significant battles of the Cold War – the Race to Space. Winning this race signified moral and technological superiority and prevented the ever aggressive, and expansionist, Eastern Block from flexing their muscles too excessively and encroaching on the democratic liberties we enjoy today.

Further Reading

Nvidia, the world’s premier graphics card maker, claim to have created the most advanced, real-time, lighting model yet of the moon landings:

They actually agree with conspiracists the photo used by Mythbusters is impossibly bright and did indeed require a secondary, back light.

But then, they claim, if you add Neil Armstrong, the photographer, to the scene his reflected, space suit light acts as this missing “back light” and thus debunks those same conspiracists. Plausible?

Unlikely.

Neil “the fill light” Armstrong was at least 10 metres away in Nvidia’s model and is a rounded object. Having used professional film reflectors one would know that they are very tricky to use and, even then, they are at least flat and have a larger surface area than a space suit. With film reflectors, it is pretty hard to mark the target correctly and illuminate it evenly; especially when moving. Using a rounded suit at 10 metres, providing narrow, specular light, one could in no way illuminate the famous photo in question. In addition, Neil “the fill light” Armstrong, standing on the ground, could not illuminate this photo of Buzz Aldrin still completely in the cabin (below) or, moreover, every one of the whole sequence of still shots I piece together in my movie. Sorry, Nvidia, I don’t “see” it:

Pepper (cracked and lots of it) to season, but never salt as it dries the meat

Mixed Spice (e.g. Moroccan or Oriental) to your personalised taste

Additionally, if using a budget cut of meat, add vinegar to tenderise (soften)

Then put in freezer for a complete freeze.

This is another “marinade essential”. Without this freeze-fracture process, of freezing then defrosting the meat, all bets are off for qualifying as a mouth slavering marinade. The freeze-facture process unsurpassably infuses the marinade throughout the meat by allowing the spices to delve deep into the meat. I’ve blind tested this theory, using dinner party guests as judge and jury. There verdict was unanimous. Marinading steaks over night in the fridge does not come anywhere near to as sumptuous as the exact same preparation involving an over night freeze then morning defrost.

In addition, another advantage of freezing the meat is that you can do the marinading as a bulk batch process. You can defrost meat, from individual glad bags, as and when required, on various Bacchanalian, feasting occasions.

It is worth noting that the defrost is a slow process. It takes quite a few hours to fully defrost the centre of the meat up to roughly room temperature (even here in sunny Australia). A cautionary note, and frequent pit fall, an incomplete defrosting will prevent the centre of meat from cooking sufficiently before a burning of the the meat’s exterior occurs. If in a hurry, and your guests’ hunger pains have onset, put the glad bags of frozen meat into warm water to melt the party ice pronto.

Anyway, after defrosting, put the succulent meat on a newly made, super-hot, coals Barbie (if available) for a 2 min frazzling each side (to seal in juices). Then depending on the thickness of the meat’s cut, a low heat for a further 5 min to get that juicy centre to the perfect medium rare, still slightly bloody, consistency one desires.

Nearly done.

Now, remove the sizzled steaks from the coals and let the juices settle on a serving plate for 5min.

Add sea salt, carve (if a large log cut) and serve.

For la pièce de résistance, serve with Sauce. Sauce is the source. It is that added taste bud explosion that will make the dish really pop. A béarnaise, mushroom, perri perri, or like, sauce will really make the difference. The sauce will also add flavour to any vegies you may serve the steak up with.

Ta da.

Super-infused, spicy, char-grilled meat to die for and fully deserved, Tong Man bragging rights for the rest of the night.

]]>http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?feed=rss2&p=19141Sharing or Bonding?http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1892
http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1892#respondThu, 05 Jun 2014 12:04:32 +0000http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1892Continue reading →]]>The $64,000 Question: is the global economy healthy? Should you invest in vibrant business and its financial lifeline, the share market, or “hide” in safe, Fixed Interest bonds and Cash?

The Standard & Poor’s 500 (S&P 500), is the “gold standard”, stock market benchmark based on the market capitalisation, or value, of the 500 largest, U.S. companies.

It is thus a pretty good proxy for the health of the U.S. economy, which, in turn, means the health of the global economy.

It looks like the global share market is at a pivotal point.

Investor sentiment can continue optimistically lapping up Central Bank, credit stimulus or could potentially collapse into a “correction” phase defined by its more “realistic”, long term value. Share prices can hold at current, remarkable, and perhaps inflated, highs or crash, by up to a half to align with longer term norms.

So, if you are an optimist you should invest in shares, or, if you err on the pessimist, maybe going for a lower risk, but lower benefit, fixed interest portfolio would be more appropriate for you.

The Good News Story

The Share Market is back to historical highs

Long term analysis by fundamental quants may suggest that the share price bubble is virtually endless. Some economists are pretty bullish and optimistic. They suggest it is not a time to sell out your position, but there’s a healthy, growth period ahead of us. At worst, we are in a period of consolidation. Whereby, there has been 15 years of “bust” cycle volatility, but we are near the end of this and the boom cycle is about to begin again. This 20 year, boom and bust cycle is well documented. The Bust, which started with the DOT.com bubble bursting in 2000, is essentially winding up. The Boom will now continue the century long progression upwards. This is an intrinsic and fully intended progression designed into our Western, fractional reserve banking model. Our money supply expands upwards exponentially ad infinitum. Hold tight and the ride upwards will recommence, in a just few years, and with vigour.

This standpoint is bolstered by Elliot Wave, behavioural theory which, when applied to the share market, suggests that when the end of Wave III (our current bubble since the GFC) is reached then we can expect a minor price slip (red forecast line – Wave IV) for a short while before a Wave V thrust onwards and upwards.

Many, including myself, predicted a double dip recession with the onset of Ben Bernanke inspired Quantitative Easing. In never, and will never seemingly, happen.

Source: investing.com

The Bad News Story

The Emperor has no clothes

When share trading volume and buy-sell, price spreads contract, even as stock prices surge, it’s a warning sign. This market stagnation signals the traders surreptitious shuffle to the trade room exit door. This phenomenon has preceded sizeable price crashes in the past. Be wary. In addition, the S&P 500 (importantly, in inflation-adjusted terms) is nearly as high today as it was at the heady heights of the ill-fated booms of 2000 and 2007. The market has clambered back to the heady heights of these two prior, relatively recent peaks. Is it third time lucky? Can the market push prices, in other words its evaluation of global business and productivity, beyond where it ceilinged in 2000? The highs of 2000 and 2007 lead to rapid crashes. These were corrections. Leading up to these crashes, investor bullish sentiment pushed prices higher and higher. This was gambling behaviour. This was not “Warren Buffet” style, value investing whereby the underlying value is core to your perception of share value. This was speculation and greed at work. I don’t say this in a cynical condeming way. It’s exciting to speculate and to let constraining rationality fly our the window. This defines as humans – opportunistic.

Well, we’re back there again. Once more, we have bubbled the share market. The global market is in a pivotal position. Does the past few years of Central Bank lead, Quantitative Easing, a somewhat farcical euphemism for money printing, placate the market’s jittery confidence? Do we believe the Emperor does indeed have invisible clothes? Does this printed money have real value we can trade with? Can we expand the money supply and use it to pay off our existing debts?

The share market is a reflection of underlying, economic productivity and the value thereof. It is subjective and filled with investor sentiment. But it is fundamentally driven by the real value we collectively assign to mankind’s productivity. We are currently over-pricing this underlying value (compared to a century of 1.75% compound growth). Perhaps, that’s why the share price is hitting a price ceiling again. The speculator’s bluff is, and always will be, finally, at some point, called. Ever since the famous “Tulip Mania” of 1600’s Holland, we have seen markets bubble then finally some “child” in the cheering crowd will shout, “but the Emperor has no clothes”, and the bubble bursts.

A century of share prices (S&P 500 – Inflation adjusted)

Source: advisorperspectives.comNB semi-log scale to equalize vertical distances for the same percentage change regardless of the index price range.

The peak in the 2000 marked an unprecedented 150% overshooting of “real” market value (nearly double the overshoot seen in the Great Depression of 1929 no less). The share prices of the S&P 500 companies should be sitting around on the long term regression value. They should be averaging around 1000. However, they currently tip over 2000. This is over-valuation. Over valuation enabled by ease money produced through Quantitative Easing. This situation is gagging for “correction”. A price reversion or normalisation, or crash if you will, is threatening the safety of the empire on its borders.So, should one stick with these over-priced, but nevertheless currently stable and profitable, shares, or should one “hide” in low risk, but low return, fixed interest bonds and Cash?

Your Options for investing in your future

I have been putting my faith in the “Growth”, Sunsuper, superannuation investment strategy. Last night I decided to jump out of this share-based strategy and retreated into the Fixed Interest-based, “Conservative” strategy. Here’s the 2 mutually exclusive alternatives:

“Growth” strategy

Has a strong emphasis on global shares, which are sensitive to global fundamental drivers and thus can be very volatile on an annual basis:

“Conservative” strategy

Has a strong emphasis on Fixed returns provided by long-term, Fixed Interest bonds and short-term, Cash deposits. These “safe” investments have low volatility that equates to less than 1 out of 20 years of negative returns:

Comparing the performance of the past 5 years of both strategies, one could infer that another bumper share market year, like our current one, would benefit you 8% if you were in a “Growth” strategy. This 8% is the difference between the rates of annual return of the “Growth” (16.2%) and “Conservative” (8.4%) strategies. However, if the share market reverts to its, some say, “rightful” long-term position, there is a 50% downside crash from a S&P 500 index of $2000 to $1000.

Is the market going to bubble forever with endless Quantitative Easing Credit? Or, will this money printing scheme have a comeuppance and the historical real value of shares be restored? If you believe that Central Banks, primarily the U.S.’s Federal Reserve, can Quantitatively Ease our way out of recession, then stick with shares. Hiding your wealth in Fixed interest Cash and Bonds will cost you 8% in lost opportunity compared to this. However, if believe that the Ben Bernanke model of global recovery is likely to fail in the coming year, going for a low risk, Fixed Interest strategy represents a potential 50% portfolio gain.

The probability of either happening is pretty much 50:50 at best. No one really knows what the near future lies in hold for us. Economists will bet their bottom dollar on an optimistic recovery or, alternatively, a pessimistic reversion to century long growth rates. Who’s to say who’s going to be right? However, the potential cost of incorrectly investing in high risk shares is much higher than the cost of investing in Fixed Interest products. In my (un)humble opinion, using a cost-benefit analytical approach, a “Conservative” investment strategy is the way to go. Playing the probabilities is the betting man’s play.

]]>http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?feed=rss2&p=18920Atlantis – sunken, but not forgottenhttp://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1868
http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1868#respondSat, 24 May 2014 15:20:53 +0000http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1868Continue reading →]]>The fabled, sunken, Lost City of Atlantis, is it Fact or Fiction?

Somewhat disappointingly, it is just Fiction.

That’s what mainstream historians have concluded. Atlantis is just a fanciful fable. It is purely a story of legend. End of story, morning glory.

However, let’s suggest for a one brief moment that it could be more than just a story. What if there’s some foundation in truth to it? Well, apart from being far more exciting to believe this ancient, sophisticated civilisation did really exist, let’s not rule it out quite yet. Let’s embark on a hypothetical ride, a voyage of discovery, into the prehistoric unknown. Let’s follow the legends and the cryptic trail of evidence that may lead to the forgotten roots of Mankind…

Religion is a Leap of Faith: an unprovable Belief, a very individual and personal decision. Whilst, I can appreciate Belief in others, personally I remain sceptical about institutionalised religion. To me, however, Belief in the City of Atlantis is far more plausible.

In all likelihood, examining the available evidence, Atlantis did really exist. That’s my Belief. However, like religion, it is a personal decision, a decision that can not be convincingly disparaged just because mainstream, conservative historians have decided to disregard any chance of an Atlantean reality.

The evidence is substantial and surprisingly convincing. Substantial enough, perhaps, for the proverbial jury to vote 9 to 3 in favour. However, there is still “reasonable doubt”… so we don’t get a sound conviction here; well, not quite yet. “Belief” will remain an issue until the evidence is a slam dunk, possibly, at a future date.

The bizarre thing is, I believe, not to believe, is the bizarre thing. The proof of the existence of Atlantis is in the pudding and the Xmas pudding is alight with delicious, burning brandy.

Plato, one of the greatest historians and philosophers of all Western civilisation, single-handedly bequeathed us the story of Atlantis. Without him there would be no Atlantis. It would have been completely wiped from the history books. Across the board, Plato’s writings are deemed some of the most reliable in history. Where applicable the vast majority of his claims have been verified by third party texts as sound. Why would we believe him in pretty much all he has told us except his writings concerning Atlantis?

In addition, all of the major surviving monoliths (such as the pyramids of Egypt, Cambodia, and Mexico) undoubtedly show star map alignment and the concept of the Earth’s Precession (a 26,000 year, polar wobble). Surely, the Ancient builders, whoever they were, must have survived at least 26,000 years in a state of stellar enlightenment to discern such a cycle?

Historians say that modern civilisation arose from the prehistoric wastelands with Mesopotamia in 3500BC. Possibly yes, more possibly not. We have, in all probability, at least another 26,000 years of enlightenment to factor in. The solid, surviving walls of an extraordinary amount of ancient temples, pyramids and stone circles, the world over, show us Precession based calendars. Atlanteans, the probable “ancient builders”, established a peaceful, marine, trading empire that disseminated advanced ideas and technology globally. This is what Plato told us. The times of Atlantis (pre-9500 BC) were the utopian, halcyon days of yore, that many hark back to wistfully, without knowing the legends may well have been reality. Organisations like the Masons, which has 3 million practitioners in the US alone, are great believers in Atlantis and they hold it central to their Mysteries. So, is it as peripheral and leftfield a believe as many mainstream historians would have us believe? The Masons prime goal is the altruistic reconstruction of the Atlantean utopia in the here and now. But, I digress, that’s the next, intriguing chapter in the story, today we just investigate the plausibility of the existence of an ancient, utopian Atlantis.

Let the experts, not yours truly, lead you on this journey of discovery. Let Graham Hancock be your host. In this Graham Hancock movie (below) we get a wee snippet of the evidence that is being compiled from disparate sources into a unified theory of Atlantis. Mr. Hancock has been one of the leading authorities on the subject for many decades now. Watch this sampler, then browse the net for more, and there is lots, if your interest is piqued. It is an interesting, and perhaps enjoyable, ride…

Synopsis

A world-first, biological, carbon capture plant is potentially on the horizon to clean up coal power station effluent. This technology, if successful, could be a game changer for energy production: “clean” coal power coupled with renewable petrol production. How close are we to fulfilling that dream?

Algae.Tec will provide the algae-based bioreactors; Bayswater Power Station will provide the Carbon Dioxide food to drive the reaction. It’s a win-win, Algae.Tec primarily finance the project by creating renewable diesel or jet fuel, Bayswater benefit from reduced Carbon Tax liabilities.

Bayswater power station will see some of its carbon dioxide emissions captured on site and fed into sealed tanks packed with algae.

The algae – essentially a form of vegetable oil – will then be harvested and processed at a nearby facility into fuel for sale.

Opinion

President Obama

President Obama claims algal bio-sequestration could potentially be one of the most productive ways to address our fuel needs as the price of gas continues to rise.

Jerry Ellis (Chairman of MBD Energy and former Chairman of BHP)

Jerry Ellis claims algal bio-sequestration is uneconomic, but could be useful in treating agricultural, domestic and industrial waste water. It is still an unproven technology; a work-in-progress.

Summary

In summary, if the chairman of the main competitor to Algae. Tec and former Chairman of BHP, Jerry Ellis, doesn’t currently back this horse, it is probably a filly to look out for in the future, but be perhaps stabled in the present.

Detailed analysis…

The NSW government – Algae Tec. agreement

Bayswater Power Station

On Jul 2nd ‘13, it was announced that the development of an algal, biofuel farm at Macquarie Generation power station had been agreed by all concerned parties. The plan has earned the backing of the federal and state governments, and Macquarie Generation, the NSW state-owned power generator that operates Bayswater. The news of this AUD$140 million development has created some significant hype about the prospects of this burgeoning technology. Should we be taking more than just an onlooker’s interest in this “sustainable”, biofuel source and waste management technology?

The deal involves Macquarie Generation providing land for the biofuels plant, an endless supply of water, CO2 and electricity, and the possibility of carbon abatement credits… Algae.Tec will on-sell the processed fuel.

The first phase of the project between Algae.Tec and Mac Gen will be a 400-module facility, which is a large scale up from Algae.Tec’sone-module, proof-of-concept facility in Nowra. The current, project cost for Phase 1 is estimated at A$140 million and construction is slated to begin next year. Each module is a bioreactor tank, about the size of shipping containers, which are designed to grow non-GMO algae on an industrial scale for biofuel production to replace fossil fuels. A major goal of the algal farming industry is to successfully achieve algal bioremediation of industrial emissions, for environmental gain and the sustainable production of valuable products. Bioremediation is the use of micro-organisms, in this case, algae, to metabolise and thus neutralise pollutants. Of particular interest to Algae.Tec and Mac Gen are the removal of pollutants from the effluent water and the reduction of gas, flue emissions, specifically CO2 sequestration.

Bayswater now pumps out about 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide gas a year; the project (Phase 1) will purportedly capture about 270,000 tonnes of that CO2. Bayswater’s owner Macquarie Generation said that a successful algae fuel plant would help to reduce a carbon tax bill expected to top $500million this year (270M, CO2 tonnes x $24.15 Carbon price = $6MM tax abatement).

The project is particularly valuable to Mac Gen as it reduces their Carbon Tax liability and cleans up their ash dam, effluent water. But, it is also valuable to their partner, Algae.Tec, as the resulting algal oil, a form of vegetable oil, will be converted to biodiesel and hydrogenated to grade A jet fuel at a new biofuels production facility, while waste, vegetable, biomass matter will be converted into pellets for cattle feed.

The Hype

Algae.Tecsays: “In what is said by Algae.Tec to be a world first, carbon dioxide emissions from the power station will be pumped into the facility where the algae will feed on it and convert it into algal oil.”

Partly right: eg MBD Energy have had an analogous, though test, project at Tarong since 2011. In addition, as far back as 2009 the USA was thinking the same, but failed (see “GreenFuel Technologies”).

Russell Skelton, Macquarie Generation CEO, says: “[Algae.Tec] new technology is improving a traditional power plant. Carbon is now our single largest cost. This technology should reduce our carbon output, reduce our carbon bill, and at the same time improve our bottom line.”

Partly right: this assumes a $24.15 a metric tonne carbon price still exists, which no longer is the case and is unlikely to return since both Political parties are against the Carbon Tax.

“At a time when all the petroleum refining capacity is closing down in NSW, this is the beginning of an era of renewable fuel which can be ‘grown’ in the state and can substitute imported petroleum products.”

“The Algae.Tec solution requires less than one-tenth the land footprint of pond growth options, while its enclosed module system is designed to deliver the highest yield of algae per hectare, and solves the problem of food-producing land being turned over for biofuel production”

“this deal reflects a genuine desire on the part of the NSW Government and the NSW power industry, to support solutions to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuelled power stations”

Chris Hartcher, NSW Energy Minister, says: “This deal is an innovative means of capturing and reusing carbon emissions and providing the Hunter region with a locally produced green fuel source,”

A win for NSW government: “The deal is a win for the state government on several fronts. Carbon is now MacGen’s single largest cost, and its capture will reduce the group’s carbon bill and improve its bottom line. Petroleum refining capacity is declining in NSW following Caltex’s decision to shift towards fuel imports, and the biofuel produced at Bayswater can feed immediately into fuel demand from the industry-heavy Hunter region. The region has also seen the loss of many jobs over past years, and the Algae.Tec plant will create around 60 new jobs initially, rising into the hundreds as expansion plans are implemented. Finally, the NSW government has an opportunity to revive its “green” credentials.”

The Algae.Tec, algal, photosynthetic process

The heart of the algal, bioremediative process is the most important biochemical process in nature, photosynthesis. Photosynthesis produces sugar: nature’s primary source of energy. It converts the sun’s power in the form of light into a physical state that can be used as a source of energy for growth and repair. It just happens it requires carbon dioxide (CO2) and water, and has oxygen as a by-product. The Algae.Tec, algal, photosynthetic process is specifically interested in the CO2 requirement as this is a means of fixing carbon and thus preventing its emission as a gas into the atmosphere and thus minimises anthropogenic, CO2-based, Global Warming. The Sugar is also useful to Algae.Tec as it can be harvested for economic gain to help fund the project. In algae, as opposed to land-based crops, this simple sugar is often converted and stored as complex, high energy, lipid oils. After tricky, algae “harvesting” (separation from water) these lipids can then be converted to Biodiesel + Jet Fuel + Ethanol (at a very reasonable, but controversial, $44/barrel according to Algae.Tec) and the left-over biomass can be used as animal feed. The latter conversion involves “extraction” (extracting oil and other components from the algal biomass) and “refining” the ultimate products from those precursors (such as the transesterification of oils to produce biodiesel).

Photosynthesis:

C6H12O6 represents carbohydrates such as sugars, cellulose, and lignin, but in algae are often converted to lipid oils.

NB many other nutrients are found in coal, water effluent (eg macronutrients: nitrate, phosphate; micronutrients: trace metals) that are also needed for algal growth.

Project Financing

Algae.Tec will supply the algae production modules at an expected cost for the initial 400 of $140m. The company expects to recoup costs within 3-4 years. The plan thereafter is to increase the size of the facility to 2000 modules, with a goal of reaching 20,000 modules by 2020. For initial funding, the company is currently anticipating a US bond issue and does not expect to require further equity raising at this stage. Assisting the funding requirement is a 45 cents in the dollar tax rebate from the federal government on profits from biofuel production. The then NSW Energy Minister, Chris Hartcher, announced the deal, and the company is also hopeful of additional state government funding support. Newspaper sources claim that Algae.Tec still needs to raise some funds to get the project underway. The details of who’s actually paying what is not completely clear.

Algae.Tec has engaged energy services specialist Worley Parsons as contractor for construction of the facility. Funding is expected to be secured within six to nine months at which point the requisite pre-feasibility study will be completed and permits secured. Construction is expected to be completed by the June quarter 2014 with first biofuel production anticipated by end-2014.

Algae.Tec Share price

Algae.Tec started in 2007 and is listed on the Australian stock exchange.

Its shares have fallen from 30¢ at the start of the year to 17¢ last week, before rebounding to more than 22¢ this week.

Algae.Tec listed in 2011 on a 20cps offer price and peaked at over 60c in early 2012 on positive news flow. As is the fate of many innovative start-ups, early price jumps provided attractive exit levels for seed investors and initial newsflow gave way to quiet periods as new deals, such as Bayswater, underwent negotiations, leading to waning investor interest. The shares have since drifted back to 20c (a week after the Bayswater announcement) and by Feb’14 they have slipped to 15c.

Competitors

Algal bioremediation is not a new concept and many other companies are also trying to push the lab concept into a viable, industrial-scaled development:

MBD Energy

MBD Energy are ahead in the algal, space race as they, since Jan 2013, actually have a “currently functioning”, pilot project downstream of a coal power plant, “Tarong Algal Synthesiser Display Plant Project”. This is a collaboration with the plant’s owners, Stanwell Corp. It also uses coal waste in the form of ash dam water and flue gas to grow algae that is then harvested, i.e. separated from the water, using OriginOil’s “Electro Water Separation” technique. Algae are very small and thus light. Gravity has little effect on them, centrifuges are largely ineffectual and a great deal of electricity is required to remove organics from their aqueous, growing environment. The Tarong facility also aims to clean the ash dam water of its contaminants and self-fund through biofuel and animal feed production.

“From 2014, one or more of these Algal Synthesisers [only Tarong one was built, planned Eraring and Loy Yang pilot plants never happened] may then be progressively expanded to some thousands of hectares”. MBD has considerable investment backing. But, as of today, they have not gone to Phase 2 of their pilot project, in which they intended to expand their Display Project to a fully-fledged commercial facility at Tarong Power.

MBD claim they can bioremediate (i.e. remove pollutants) up to 50% of all CO2 emissions a coal power station. This is limited to the fact that coal stations fire 24/7 whilst algae only grow during daylight.

MBD have had quite a lot of press (National Press Club, ABC News, Channel 7 News, Boardroom TV) and have their lead researcher, Dr Kirsten Heimann, at James Cook University, Townsville. Lead investors include Anglo-American Coal and Sentient. They are looking for Clean Energy Fund funding and have already received from the Australian government’s CRC a grant of $5.4MM. They have spent a total of $30MM thus far in R&D. They claim they, not Algae.Tec, are the first in Australia, but not world, to use algae bioremediation in combination with power plant effluent.

They claim 1MM tonnes of CO2 can produce $250MM of animal feed and biodiesel.

Pacific Reef Fisheries, Australia

Partnered with MBD, have a sea lettuce farm running off prawn farm effluent

In 2009, Planning a 90 reactor project with De Beers in S. Africa (not made still in 2013)

GreenFuel Technologies, USA

In 2009, the Harvard-MIT algae company winds down after spending millions and experiencing delays, technical difficulties.

GreenFuel Technologies, one of the earliest, best funded and most publicized algae companies, is shutting its doors

Getting the whole thing to run smoothly, though, was tougher than expected. GreenFuel could grow algae. The problem was controlling it. In 2007, a project to grow algae in an Arizona greenhouse went awry when the algae grew faster than they could be harvested and died off. The company also found its system would cost more than twice its target.

Power Station smokestack model

Had a test bioreactor at Redhawk Coal Power Station in California in 2007

Sapphire Energy, USA

Non-power station, open system

From 2012, $50 million grant from the Department of Energy and a $54.4 million dollar loan guarantee from the Department of Agriculture, providing security for a privately funded loan

Currently, too expensive as a biofuel. Needs to be 5x cheaper (at least) to compete with crude oil.

However, could be made economically viable, not purely as a biofuel, but co-harvesting for nutraceuticals (omega 3 fatty acids, antioxidants) and protein-based pharmaceuticals (normally made very expensively in bacteria)

An array of proposals is being developed around the globe (see “Competitors” below). But few if any projects appear to have been commercially successful despite substantial research and development spending.

In March’13, Exxon Mobil chief executive said it might take 25 years to make algae biofuels commercially successful.

Weeks later, Exxon said it was going back to the “basic science” of algae after spending $100 million in four years without success.

Biodiesel would have to sell for over $800 per barrel for a coal plant bioreactor to be economic

Calling it unproven technology understates its problems

There is no reasonable scenario that would cause either the capital cost or the efficiency of CO2 mitigation to significantly improve

The strong interest in CO2 to algae results from it alleged photosynthesis conversion efficiency of as much as 12%. This is 120 x the average of all biomass; hence, the stampede of interest, research capital and press coverage. However, the only long term study conducted by NREL of algae farms resulted in an average efficiency of about 1.3%.

Bioreactors are used for the production of high-value products such as pharmaceuticals and enzymes (values >$100,000 per tonne). They are currently too expensive for the production of algal nutraceuticals such as astaxanthin(>$10,000 per tonne) and almost all experienced expert advice suggests that photo-bioreactors will not be cost-effective for the production of low-value biofuels (>$1000 per tonne) in the foreseeable future (as of Aug’12).

The primary obstacle is Cost Parity with petroleum-based fuels, which can vary considerably across different production processes. Algae holds great promise, but the break-even point is predicted to still be about five to fifteen years away.

Secondary obstacles include the energy balance related to produce algae fuel and over-hype, which can create unrealistic expectations among investors.

The pros and cons of algae as a biofuel

Pros

Compared to terrestrial crops such as corn, soy or even palm plants, algae are far more oil-rich and offer a higher yield of oil per unit of land in a year. The main components of algae are carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids. Of particular interest are the lipids, which can be processed into valuable fuel products such as biodiesel (through transesterification), jet fuel, and even traditional gasoline and diesel depending on the species. Lipids produced from algae contain saturated and polar lipids, which are suitable for use as a fuel feedstock and are contained in higher concentrations than other plants. In some species, 50% of algae weight can be deemed high grade vegetable oil (no land plant can compete with this)

Many varieties with many harvestable products (in particular respect to biofuels, length of carbon chain in lipids)

Algae fuels are lipid-based and thus are generally considered “fungible” with petroleum (drop-in compatible) and can be used for the production of typical fuels without disruptive changes in processes or infrastructure. Land plants (such as corn / sugar cane) produce hydrocarbon based biomass and thus must be fermented to water-rich ethanol. This leads to engine rust, has a heavy CO2 budget and adds considerable cost to the manufacturing process.

Cons

Contaminant (eg predators such as the bacteria, protozoa or water fleas) prevention (esp. in open systems) is difficult and can expensively wipe out whole colonies (see GreenFuel Technologies bankruptcy)

Microalgae are very small. Thus, gravity and centrifuging is largely ineffective in harvesting process. More expensive technologies are required (see OriginOil’s “Electro Water Separation”)

Farming technologies are complicated, in developmental stage and hard to scale up.

Biomass waste used for animal feed has limited success as:

Animal feed, as animals soon refuse it as iodine is too high

Human food, as algae often feeds on contaminated, industrial/agricultural waste

Summary

In summary, if the chairman of the main competitor to Algae. Tec and former Chairman of BHP, Jerry Ellis, doesn’t currently back this horse, it is probably a filly to look out for in the future, but be perhaps stabled in the present.

Appendix

Who is Algae.Tec?

Algae.Tec Ltd, founded in 2007, is an Australian, advanced, renewable oil from algae, company that has developed a high-yield enclosed algae growth and harvesting system, the “McConchie-Stroud” System. The Company has offices in Atlanta, Georgia and Perth, Western Australia. The Algae.Tec bioreactor, an enclosed modular engineered technology, is designed to grow non-GMO algae on an industrial scale, and produce biofuels that replace predominantly imported fossil fuels. The Algae.Tec solution is less than one tenth the land footprint of pond growth options, while its enclosed module system is designed to deliver the highest yield of algae per hectare, and solves the problem of food-producing land being turned over for biofuel production.

They currently have a one-module, test facility in Nowra, NSW and proposed facilities in Holcim, Sri Lanka and possibly in China, Germany and USA.

Types of bioreactor: open vs. closed system

There are therefore many different photo-bioreactor designs in the literature. The strengths and weaknesses of each design:

Open system, ponds:

Large scale possible

Subject to contamination from predator algae strains

Subject to evaporative water and CO2 loss to the atmosphere

Difficult to control temperature (day vs. night, seasonal variations)

Small biomass concentration (1g/litre)

Require a large amount of nutrients

Closed system, photo-bioreactors:

Have no contamination and can cultivate a single algal species

Allow accurate control of nutrients and temperature

Allow a higher biomass concentration

Have larger energy consumption

Have higher capital costs, potentially doubling the final cost of algae product relative to open pond systems

]]>http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?feed=rss2&p=18440Graphene – the material to transform battery technologyhttp://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1836
http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1836#commentsSat, 14 Dec 2013 04:07:57 +0000http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1836Continue reading →]]>Innovation in battery technology will (eventually) revolutionise Energy supply in the world. Adding it to rooftop, solar, Photo Voltaic (PV) systems and providing a “clean”, firm, stable energy supply is just one small example of the potential of next Gen batteries.

To achieve cheap, high capacity, fast charge/discharge batteries (aka supercapacitors ) is the Holy Grail of energy supply. Nothing new in that, true.

However, there may be real solution on the near horizon…

Graphene is the answer (it seems)

High-performance supercapacitors made of graphene can be now manufactured to store almost as much energy as the gold standard, lithium-ion battery. They can surpass Lithium in a number of crucial ways though. They charge and discharge in seconds (not the current hours) and maintain all this over many tens of thousands of charging cycles. Graphene is also derived from cheap as chips Graphite – not pricey Lithium metal.

Tech spec
Graphene is a two dimensional material consisting of a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a honeycomb or chicken wire structure. It is the thinnest material known and yet is also one of the strongest. It conducts electricity as efficiently as copper and outperforms all other materials as a conductor of heat.

There are some real system security problems arising from large Solar PV (and Wind) penetration into the energy supply mix. They produce “dirty”, volatile power.

These problems will largely be solved by firming up the Renewables-derived power – batteries (small in the case of PV systems, or large at a grid level) could be the answer?

Their doom-and-gloom catastrophe scenarios, that justified a whopping great Carbon Tax in Australia, have fizzled away like the deadly heat waves that they no longer predict.

There’s no need to sell that water-front, Sydney harbour-side mansion. The oceans are not rising – it’s official.

It seems that the gas is off the Global Warming message; though this new message is not one we are hearing about much in the press. The recent, and much awaited, IPCC report, AR5, is noticeably different from all the 4 previous versions. It is very subdued on the plausibility of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming. Is this just-in-time to justify a Prime Minister Abbott, Carbon Tax repeal?

The chart below is the summary produced by the IPCC themselves of their catastrophic, climate scenarios. Scenarios that the media has, almost ubiquitously, reiterated, reported and propagated to us since 1990 (time of the 1st IPCC report).

How confident are the IPCC really in their purported, Global Warming catastrophes? Confidence wanes somewhat on hearing adjectives such as “very unlikely”, “exceptionally unlikely”, and “low confidence”? The only “Likely” scenario is the “Disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice” – a catastrophe that could be worse perhaps. Large, Arctic ice melt happens all the time, every summer as it happens, with no known adverse effects. Perhaps, it’s not the worst life threatening, planet destabilising, disaster that could be envisaged after all?

Here are likelihoods of the climate, catastrophe scenarios, as presented by the Global Warming experts themselves, the IPCC:

“Table 12.4: Components in the Earth system that have been proposed in the literature as potentially being susceptible to abrupt or irreversible change.”

For those who crave more background, you’ll find the detail here at Bishop Hill’s most excellent blog.

]]>http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?feed=rss2&p=18180NSW council rangers have the power to ID and even arrest youhttp://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1788
http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1788#commentsTue, 21 May 2013 06:50:38 +0000http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=1788Continue reading →]]>

Council Rangers, if they deem you have committed an offense, can ask you for your personal details, but not explicitly insist on sighting physical ID. They can, however, insist on scanning your dog’s chip, so they can indirectly ID you. In my ignorance, I thought this was exclusively a police power. If you either refuse to give them your name and address, or, let them scan your dog’s chip, then they can arrest you. Isn’t that another prerogative of the police? I guess not; they wield police powers without the full police training.

I’m a (relatively) responsible dog owner and still have managed to have had a few chats with Council Rangers over Teddy’s inhuman behaviour. The last instance being his anti-social behaviour of running into an unfenced playground frantically looking for my 2 baby children, being instantly called to heal and leashed, but still given a $330 slap on the wrist for Teddy’s disturbance of the peace. $330 is the minimum fine applicable for such an offence.

Fair is fair, the law says dogs are not allowed in kids areas. Let $330 be a warning to me that Teddy might go on an unexpected, search-and-rescue mission at will and, in so doing, significantly upset the public.

A few months back, a pair of council rangers, from the same park, witnessed a pair of rottweilers savage a Labrador and when the poor Lab’s mum tried to extricate the canine mess, she got her hand gouged for her troubles. The rotties’ owners claimed to the spectating rangers that the Lab attack their dogs. My horrified friend interceded and also attested that the reverse was the truth. In addition, she specifically also asked the rangers to get the details of the rotties’ owners. The rangers shook their heads and refused.

To be fair, if I were the ranger in the same position, I would do the same. It’s in the too hard bucket. Questioning, these less “responsible” owners and trying to fine them could be deemed a big, and confrontational, ask.

If your misdemeanour, however, is not in the “too hard bucket”, the council rangers have an obviously, well rehearsed, plan of inquiry: “Is this your dog? Can we check the chip? What is your name and address? By the way we are now fining you $330.” A $100 fine hurts, well try a minimum $330 for remembering to be responsible next time.

If, like myself, you would like to know your citizen’s rights, then a quick Google and even visits to NSW council websites may prove remarkably, and surprisingly, fruitless. A visit to the slightly less well-known, AustLII, will bear more fruit, however. For the layman, like myself, that has previously never heard of this helpful, free resource provided by UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law, here is the Companion Animals Act:

COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 – SECT 69G

Requirement to state name and address

69G Requirement to state name and address
(1) An authorised officer who reasonably suspects a person of having committed an offence under this Act or the regulations may require the person to state his or her full name and residential address.

(2) A person must not:
(a) fail to comply with a requirement under this section, or
(b) in purported compliance with such a requirement, furnish a name that is not his or her name or an address that is not his or her residential address.
Maximum penalty: 15 penalty units.

(3) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless it is established that the authorised officer warned the person that a failure to comply is an offence.

(4) If an authorised officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has committed an offence under this section, the authorised officer may, without a warrant, arrest the person.

(5) An authorised officer who arrests a person under this section must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, take the person before an authorised officer (within the meaning of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 ) to be dealt with according to law.

See also:

Power to ascertain identification information of companion animals

69E Power to ascertain identification information of companion animals
(1) An authorised officer may, at any time while in a public place, take such steps as the officer considers necessary in order to ascertain the identification information of a companion animal (including scanning the animal).

(2) The authorised officer may do so only:
(a) if the officer reasonably suspects that an offence under this Act or the regulations in respect of the companion animal has been committed, or
(b) in the case of an authorised officer of a council, for the purposes of exercising the council’s functions under Division 6 of Part 5.

(3) This section does not prevent companion animals that have been lawfully seized, secured or detained by any person (including an authorised officer) under this Act from being scanned after they have been seized, secured or detained.